This expert opinion has been prepared at the request of the Warsaw law firm Hoffman i Wspólnicy Sp.k. The purpose of this expert opinion was to answer three questions addressed by the ordering party. In response to these questions, the authors stated:
1. A condition to impose on a wholesale distributor, who is not a producer, of a fine for a violation of the prohibition specified in art. 24 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection involving the dissemination of false information on the features of products sold to retail distributors, is demonstration, by the President of the OCCP, that the wholesale distributor possessed knowledge about its inaccuracy or that the lack of such a knowledge resulted from the violation of the prudence rule, as demonstrated by the President of UOKiK, to which the wholesale distributor should have applied.
2. The fact that the members of the management board or employees of the parent company had knowledge about the falseness of information about the features of products sold to retail distributors, does not transfer to the wholesale distributor, or limit in any way, the burden laying on the President of the OCCP of proving of circumstances crucial to determine intentional or unintentional nature of distributor’s action.
3. Dissemination of the same false information as those contained in the approval certificates, without being aware of their false character, does not violate the precautionary rule.
The role of fault in cases of practices infringing collective consumer interests
